1 Introduction
This article documents current trends in Landscape Architecture programs at member schools of the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA), continuing the legacy of the 1997
LandscapeJournal article by Michael Richard Hodges and Miriam Easton Rutz, titled"AnHistorical Summary of the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture."
[1] In their work, Hodges nd Rutz highlighted the gradual growth of Landscape Architecture programs and the collective commitment of program leaders to support one another, develop a cohesive professional curriculum, and advance faculty careers. Their article emphasized key areas such as faculty development, tenure-track faculty advancement, increasing diversity, and the growing presence of women in Landscape Architecture education, all while fostering collaboration in curriculum design, professional practice, and research. Many of these themes remain pressing challenges in the field today. From an international perspective, Davorin Gazvoda emphasizes the move from a solid general education to a more specialized level in Landscape Architecture. This global landscape interaction reflects the current challenges for the USA's administrators, who must manage diverse pedagogy levels while maintaining the core values of the profession
[2].
The article also highlights the need for a distinct community of Landscape Architecture educators, separate from other national organizations such as the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), the Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF), and the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB) due to the unique differences in pressures of an academic career. Originally named the National Conference on Instructors of Landscape Architecture, CELA traces its origins to 1920 as the National Conference on Instruction in Landscape Architecture (NCILA). In the 1970s, the organization adopted its current name to reflect participation by Canadian institutions and to encourage broader international engagement. Throughout its history, the CELA has remained a leading organization dedicated to supporting Landscape Architecture faculty and administrators through service initiatives, awards, annual conferences, and peer-reviewed publications, with a mission "to support educators to advance the profession." At present, CELA is the most comprehensive organization of Landscape Architecture faculty and administrators in the Americas and beyond, composing virtually all institutions of higher learning in Landscape Architecture in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand
[3].
This article offers a perspective, intended to document current trends in Landscape Architecture program administration, including insights into recruitment initiatives and the challenges administrators are currently facing. For faculty, the findings also provide a record of hiring efforts, mid-career development opportunities, and evolving academic responsibilities. While some of the survey responses may be applicable to the broader context of academic administration, there are also discipline-specific factors that manifest uniquely within Landscape Architecture, such as:
1) The interdisciplinary nature of the field often requires programs to balance competing demands between accreditation standards, creative studio-based learning, and evidence-based research.
2) The demand for technical skills (e.g., GIS, environmental modeling) alongside creative design capabilities creates unique challenges for curriculum development and faculty expertise.
3) Landscape Architecture programs are often housed within larger, more prominent disciplines such as Architecture, Planning, or Agriculture, which can compound ongoing challenges related to the visibility and understanding of the Landscape Architecture profession.
While some challenges have evolved since the time of the Hodges and Rutz article, many have persisted since the inception of the Landscape Architecture education profession.
2 Methodology
2.1 Survey Development and Background
The survey and analysis presented in this article are grounded in recurring discussions held annually at two administrators'meetings hosted by the CELA and the ASLA between 2021 to 2023. These meetings were attended by department chairs and program directors from CELA member institutions and accredited Landscape Architecture programs across the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The discussions addressed ongoing trends, challenges, strategies and solutions encountered by administrators who often navigate the competing expectations of upper administration, the profession, accrediting boards, and the diverse needs of students, faculty, and staff.
Building on these discussions, the authors designed a 17-question survey (Table 1) structured around two principal themes: administration and academic careers. Each theme was divided into multiple subsets. The administration section reflected general program challenges, full-time faculty concerns, and faculty recruitment; the academic careers section focused on institutional support for new and mid-career faculty, as well as expectations regarding full-time equivalency (FTE) in teaching, research, and service.
2.2 Survey Distribution and Outreach
To ensure broad participation, the survey covered all accredited Landscape Architecture programs in the United States via email, leveraging networks such as CELA, ASLA, and program-specific contacts. Since distribution was administered through these organizations, contact with administrators in international programs was limited to their membership in these USA-based networks.
According to the Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB), as of 2023, there were 102 Landscape Architecture programs at 76 institutions in the USA. The LAAB defines a professional program in Landscape Architecture as a program that "encompasses the body of knowledge common to the profession and promotes acquisition of the knowledge and skills necessary to enter professional practice" and a program administrator as the person who "is responsible for the operation of the professional program in compliance with the standards"
[4]. The survey was distributed to the lead administrator at each program, from August 31, 2023 to November 1, 2023. Respondents were also invited to provide open-ended comments to elaborate on their answers and offer additional content. All responses were anonymized to encourage candid participation and reduce potential response bias
[5]. No identifying information was collected, enabling participants to share insights freely and without concern for attribution.
A total of 41 completed responses were received, representing a cross-section of program leadership perspectives nationwide.
2.3 Limitations
While the data gathered provide valuable insight into current trends and administrative challenges of the USA's Landscape Architecture education, the authors acknowledge that limitations remain, providing the opportunity for future research and exploration based on program characteristics. This survey did not collect data related to: 1) program size (e.g., small, medium, large); 2) program type (e.g., undergraduate vs. graduate-focused); and 3) geographic region (e.g., Northeast, Midwest, South, West). Further analysis of these variables may yield deeper insights into how institutional context influences administrative experiences and challenges.
3 Administration of the Survey and Findings
3.1 Program Challenges
For the question "What are your biggest challenges with the program you oversee?", respondents could select one or multiple options and provide additional comments for each choice. The choices included: low credit hour production, lack of institutional support, lack of upper administration support, limited staff support, low functioning committees, poor or low faculty governance, lack of assistantship/student funding, limited institutional admissions (due to high admissions qualifications), threats to tenure, poor facilities, lack of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, lack of funding for technology/furnishings, lack of funding for faculty/student travel, hiring qualified faculty/instructors, being out of date with current trends, low enrollment, low performing faculty, low performing students, lack of connection among faculty members, lack of support for accreditation preparation, meeting accreditation standards, and other. Out of 41 responses to this question, the most commonly cited challenges were as follows (Fig. 1).
The lack of assistantship/student funding responses primarily comes from graduate program administrators. Open-ended comments express concerns regarding institutional changes to funding such as the loss of tuition waivers and the high cost of stipends. There is also the perception that graduate students expect to receive full funding for their degree and the difficulty of attracting high-quality graduate students if funding is unavailable.
Many administrators express the challenge of limited staff support. Comments included challenges of a high turnover of staff, resulting in a lack of institutional knowledge and staff being overworked because they are shared with other departments and programs. Considering that very few Landscape Architecture programs in the USA are the primary degree program of a college, school or unit and many are housed in Architecture schools, Environmental Sciences or Agriculture units, lack of institutional knowledge and dedicated staff is common.
Low enrollment has been a long-time challenge for many Landscape Architecture programs, often associated with the public's lack of knowledge about the profession. According to the survey results, 48% of respondents have been experiencing low enrollment resulting in loss of credit hour production, program funding, and challenges with marketing among larger, more common programs like Architecture, Urban Planning or Interior Design.
Faculty/student funding for travel is important for research initiatives, promotion and tenure, and collaborations. When funding is cut, many faculty are unable to attend more than one conference and sometimes not even an entire conference. According to the survey results, institutional demands to lower costs and low credit hour production negatively impact the ability for a program to support faculty/students to participate in this important development activity. Lack of administrative and institutional support also play a significant role in low funding.
The fifth most challenging issue is hiring qualified faculty/instructors. Survey findings suggest that the primary challenge of hiring qualified faculty revolved around institutional budget cuts and hiring freezes. This is complicated by faculty retirements during COVID, leaving programs shorthanded. Many Landscape Architecture programs have been searching for one or more faculty replacements over the past few years, contributing to a shortage of qualified faculty. Another challenge in hiring qualified instructors is location. Responses state that their institution is in an isolated area, three or more hours away from a city where professional landscape architecture firms are typically located. This impacts the ability of professionals to teach part-time as instructors and for professionals to return to academia for a master's degree from an accredited program, which is often a minimum requirement for hiring.
3.2 Concerns With Full-Time Faculty
Challenges that administrators face are not only associated with the program or institution but extend to concerns about full-time faculty. In terms of the question "What are some of your biggest concerns about full-time faculty who teach in your program?", the options for administrators to select included: faculty burnout, ineffective/poor teaching, faculty not conducting enough high-quality research, faculty unwilling to take on service, underqualified faculty, faculty not keeping up to date with current practices, faculty professional practice taking away from academic duties, low faculty involvement/engagement with activities of the program, poor faculty attitude/conduct, no concerns, and other. Out of 41 responses, the top challenges for full-time faculty were shown in Fig. 2.
Prevalence of burnout in academia and strategies for understanding and mitigating its effects are addressed well in the book
UnravelingFacultyBurnout by Rebecca Pope-Ruark
[6]. Based on comments from this survey, the primary reason for faculty burnout is a shortage of faculty and eligible hires. Along with low numbers of faculty, the length of time spent in studio courses (typically one credit hour for two contact hours) and the expectations for faculty to conduct research and service contribute significantly to burnout. Too few faculty are being asked to do too much.
The notion that faculty are teaching too much could contribute to the other responses about the lack of service faculty participate in, the lack of faculty conducting high-quality research, and low faculty engagement with activities in the program. Comments indicated that a high amount of teaching often leads to less time to contribute to other requirements of an academic career. Some responses noted that service and engagement in program activities are not valued in annual reviews, leading faculty to choose more recognizable activities like teaching and research. However, conducting enough high-quality research is among the top five concerns about faculty, with comments noting that faculty have a high percentage of time in teaching, resulting in low research activities.
Although the fifth most common concern about faculty is about faculty not keeping up with current practices, there were not many comments that elaborated on this. Answers included difficulty in hiring qualified faculty due to a lack of upper administration support, and an increase in the number of adjuncts being hired over full-time faculty that require more mentoring and time.
3.3 Recruitment
Low enrollment was the third most common concern for administrators in the survey and has been the topic of many CELA meetings. For the question"Ingeneral, what do you feel has been your best recruitment activity?", choices included: notable/successful faculty, open admissions, targeting transfers from community colleges, providing funding for students, social media posts, high school visits, advertising, notable/successful research, and other. As shown in Fig. 3, the top response was notable/successful faculty, however, there were no comments on how this impacted enrollment. The second most common response was other, where administrators could write in their own recruitment initiatives. Open-ended comments stated that the best recruitment was through their student ASLA organization, although they did not mention why or what their student organizations did to promote recruitment. Some comments referred to the program's website as a recruitment tool. Outreach to feeder schools/ programs, having faculty and students talking to interested students, and strong advisors and recruitment support were also mentioned. One program states that they offer a high enrollment general education course which contributes to enrollment growth. Similarly, another program writes letters to students who did not get accepted to their unit's Architecture program encouraging those students to consider Landscape Architecture. The results indicate that recruitment techniques vary based on program opportunities such as having notable faculty and an active student organization, and communication strategies such as the program's website or outreach to feeder schools.
4 Academic Careers
4.1 New Faculty
The survey also asked questions about standards for faculty workload and developmental support. For the question "What training or support does your program offer to new faculty (0–6 years)?", the options included none, institutional orientation, college/program orientation, handbook or guide, a designated mentor, junior faculty awards/recognitions, course release < 3 years, course release > 3 years, start-up funding < USD 1,000, start-up funding USD 1,001–5,000, start-up funding USD 5,001–10,000, start-up funding > USD 10,000, study abroad opportunities, and other. The top answers were illustrated in Fig. 4.
Most programs offer institutional and program orientation, course release < 3 years, a designated mentor, and nominations for junior faculty awards/recognition. Variations on course release included two course releases over 3 years, or course release for a year or two. Half of the respondents noted that they offered > USD 10,000 in start-up funding, followed by USD 1,001–5,000 and USD 5,001–10,000. Two programs state that they do not provide any financial support for new faculty.
4.2 Mid-Career Faculty
The research looked at identifying mid-career faculty development and support. The survey asked,"What training or support does your program offer to mid-career faculty (7–15 years)?". The options included none, institutional professional development/training, college or program level professional development/training, leadership training, leadership opportunities, senior faculty awards, and recognitions, sabbatical (if so, how long?), course release (if so, how many credits?), study abroad opportunities, travel/support funding < USD 1,000, travel/support funding USD 1,001–5,000, travel/support funding USD 5,000–10,000, travel/support funding > USD 10,000, SEED grants for research, teaching, or service, and other. The top responses were shown in Fig. 5.
Sabbaticals are a significant aspect of academic life, offering faculty members opportunities for research, professional development, and rejuvenation
[7]. According to survey responses, there were a variety of sabbatical offerings. Most of the respondents noted that the sabbatical their institution offers is for one semester with full pay or one year with half pay. Mid-career faculty are eligible for a sabbatical every 6–8 years. Leadership training through the institution and SEED grants at both the university and college level were included in responses. Travel funding in the range of USD 1,001–5,000 was the most common amount followed by < USD 1,000, USD 5,001–10,000, and > USD 10,000. Comments on opportunities for leadership primarily revolved around committee and council leadership, not administrative or higher-level advancement.
4.3 Full-Time Equivalency
Institutions and units across the country have various formulas for calculating FTE. While lecturers and other faculty appointments may comprise 100% instruction, it is more common for 9-month tenured and tenure-track faculty to have a combination of instruction, research, and service. The survey asked administrators a series of questions regarding time allocated to these activities and how the advising of master's and doctoral students counts toward this time. The following sections on instruction, research, and service provide the survey results.
4.3.1 Instruction
Landscape Architecture programs, like other design programs, offer studio-based courses and other practical classes critical to the development of design professionals. In their article, Ernest L. Boyer and Lee D. Mitgang
[5] discussed the studio-based approach within the context of Architecture education, examining how design studios are central to learning and professional preparation in the field.
The survey asked,"Ingeneral, what percentage of time is your faculty assigned to instruction according to their contracts?". The options included < 10%, 10%–19%, 20%–29%, 30%–39%, 40%–49%, 50%–59%, and > 60%. There was a tie between 40%–49% and > 60%, both received 45% of the responses. The second most common percentage was a tie between 30%–39% and 50%–59%, both with 5% of the responses. The survey then asked,"Ingeneral, how many credit hours do your faculty teach during a 9-month appointment?". The options included < 3, 3–5, 6–8, 9–11, 12–15, 16–18, and > 18. The top five answers were 16–18 (40%), 12–15 (27%), > 18 (15%), 9–11 (13%), and 6–8(5%).
The discrepancy in the results would indicate that percentage of time and credit hour production are not connected in a unanimous way. They vary from program to program. One program might consider 16–18 credits as 40%–49% instruction, while another might consider it 60%. This discrepancy is further complicated by the fact that studio courses generally have higher contact hours than credit hour production and many faculty also advise thesis and doctoral students. Survey respondents stated that advising often counted toward teaching or was expected as part of the position with no credit toward teaching, research, or service.
4.3.2 Research and Service
Research plays an important role in academia and outlets such as the CELA provide events to support faculty research. The survey asked,"Ingeneral, what percentage of time is your faculty assigned to research according to their contracts?". The options included < 10%, 10%–19%, 20%–29%, 30%–39%, 40%–49%, 50%–59%, and > 60%. A majority stated that faculty were assigned to 40%–49% research, followed by 20%–29% and 30%–39%, and that promotion and tenure guidelines did not specify the number of peer reviewed products because it was dependent on quality. A few mentioned that their promotion and tenure guidelines included one or two peer reviewed products per year. Most service assignments stated a range of 20%–29%, followed by 10%–19% and < 10%.
4.4 Additional Pressures
The last part of the survey asked an open-ended question on other pressures administrators face. Comments included a lack of support from upper administration, a constant churn of university staff and personnel, and budget and resource limitations. Some expressed concerns about their own experience with job creep, bureaucratic busywork, and lack of time.
5 Discussion and Conclusions
Regarding the administrative and recruitment challenges in this survey, which reflect a widespread evolution of the profession at the global level, Gazvoda defines it as a "dual character" that requires a master integration of systematic scientific methods and artistic creativity
[2,
8]. In the USA, this tension between strict accreditation requirements and the creative design studio, identified by ECLAS (European Council of Landscape Architecture Schools) as the most suitable format for imparting complicated spatial knowledge, is widely evident
[8]. Moreover, the visibility concerns highlighted by the surveyed administrators—especially when programs operate within larger units—reflect Dušan Ogrin's ontological definition of Landscape Architecture as a "corrective" in developmental planning
[9]. Ogrin suggests that compared with other disciplines that emphasize immediate social and economic issues, Landscape Architecture also ensures pleasant appearance, functionality, and nature conservation
[9]. Joan Nassauer expanded this synthesizing role by proposing that landscape acts as a "medium and method of synthesis." Nassauer's idea of the "perceptible realm," defined as the scale at which human perception and decision-making occur in relation to intentional landscape change, offers a theoretical justification for integrating technical skills such as GIS with experiential design
[10]. Finally, the 48% of respondents who reported issues with low enrollment and credit-hour production suggest that these could be mitigated by the European trends discussed by Gazvoda
[8]. He notes that the "3+2" formula (a 3-year undergraduate plus 2-year master's program) has led to a "qualitative heterogeneity" of programs, resulting in the creation of specialized master's degrees such as Landscape and Well-being, as well as Landscape Management
[8]. These curricula demonstrate the "maturity of the profession"and can be employed by administrators to expand recruitment and enhance disciplinary distinctiveness in an integrated global context
[8].
This research highlights the growing need for support among Landscape Architecture administrators, who are tasked with managing a wide range of responsibilities, from finances and resources to personnel. These leaders face significant challenges despite the diversity of their institutions, including differing geographic locations, college affiliations, student populations, and program sizes. Top challenges for programs include student funding, staff support, and enrollment. These challenges stem from common issues, such as recruitment difficulties, insufficient backing from upper administration, and the struggle to hire qualified faculty, which persist across the field. In response, new hiring initiatives have emerged, including designated mentorship programs, course releases, and substantial start-up funds (often exceeding USD 10,000), to attract and retain talent.
Additionally, concerns remain about mid-career faculty, such as burnout, lack of engagement, and the challenge of staying current with evolving industry practices. However, institutions are beginning to address these issues by offering resources such as targeted training programs, additional funding for research, and sabbatical opportunities to support faculty well-being and professional development. Tracking and documenting the challenges and successes faced by Landscape Architecture administrators offers valuable insights into the complexities of their roles. This research emphasizes the importance of sharing these experiences, fostering ongoing discourse, and creating a network of support for administrators across the country. By openly addressing these issues, the Landscape Architecture field can work towards more effective administrative practices, ultimately enhancing the overall quality of education and practice in the discipline.
The emergence of what scholars term a "technological paradigm" driven by artificial intelligence (AI) has intensified the persistent challenge of faculty burnout and concerns about keeping curricula up to date
[11]. Although the survey demonstrates administrators' concern with faculty staying up to date, recent literature shows a significant gap in Landscape Architecture compared with other allied disciplines in AI-driven research
[11]. The dramatic growth of AI subfields—particularly machine learning and computer visualization—emphasizes the need for faculty to move beyond traditional design tools to address complex problems such as climate resilience and large-scale ecological degradation
[11]. Therefore, the USA's programs can choose to lead this transition, or else face a "root shock" if technology designers from outside the field shape its future
[11].
This research supports a broader "collective landscape education consciousness" that extends beyond individual institutions in the USA
[12]. This study has the potential to facilitate the transition from the traditional model of training "soloists"—individual designers—toward educating "conductors"
[13]. Carl Steinitz emphasizes the urgent global need for "conductors," generalists capable of leading multidisciplinary and collaborative teams across design professions, geographic sciences, and information technologies
[13]. By establishing these administrative standards and providing a holistic, globally oriented framework, Landscape Architecture education can move toward a more balanced future capable of addressing the unprecedented challenges of the 21st century.
PDF
(657KB)
